Individual response spread in self-report scales: personality correlations and consequences

Taking a Timeout to Ensure Well-Being: Social Work Involvement in College Sports

“…While the researcher was able to check for face validity and internal consistency reliability, additional information about the reliability and validity of the tools remains unknown. Additionally, it is impossible to ensure that all participants understood each question in the same way (Austin, Gibson, Deary, McGregor, & Dent, 1998). While some of the questions were concrete, other questions had more abstract orientations that explored respondents' perceptions of various concepts.…”

“…The use of a Likert scale also posed a limitation. People often interpret and use Likert scales differently, which can lead to spurious results (Austin et al, 1998). Future surveys might also ask questions about current service utilization and satisfaction of services.…”

“…Thus, there is no way to independently verify participant responses. In other words, there is no way of knowing how honest participants were in their responses (Austin et al, 1998).…”

Confidentiality and Physicians' Health. A Cross‐sectional Study of University Hospital Physicians in Four European Cities (the HOUPE‐study)

“…The latter is emphasized in the discussion. Furthermore, cross cultural and individual differences are found to affect the manner of response to self-report items 43) and physician's non-response to surveys 44) . As the central aim of the HOUPE study is to investigate how organizational structure and work arrangements influence health, sickness absence and turnover intentions among hospital physicians, the main survey did not include measurement of personality traits.…”

A Pearson-Type-VII item response model for assessing person fluctuation

“…In several studies, different within-session measures of variability showed a certain degree of convergent validity (Austin, Deary, Gibson, McGregor, & Dent, 1998;Chaplin, 1991;Cummings, 1939;Fekken & Holden, 1987Fiske & Rice, 1955;Goldberg, 1978;Reise & Waller, 1993;Schneiderman, 1980). Also, within-session measures of variability showed meaningful relations with some carefully selected variables, such as conscientiousness (Austin et al, 1998;Lanning, 1991), selfpresentation (Johnson, 1981), control (Reise & Waller, 1993), advice seeking (Baumeister & Tice, 1988), and disordered thinking (Evans, 1984). However, evidence on the second point is generally deceptive.…”